The personal blog of Peter Lee a.k.a. "China Hand"... Life is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel, and an open book to those who read. You are welcome to contact China Matters at the address chinamatters --a-- prlee.org or follow me on twitter @chinahand.

Wednesday, January 01, 2014

Abe Sees More Assertive Japan Across Entire World

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said, in
remarks published Sunday, that he expected his country to be playing a more
assertive security role throughout "the entire world" -- and have a
new constitution to back this ambition.

…Punch line is, this AFP article (including
the headline used as the title of this post) is datelined April 22, 2007,
during Abe’s brief, first prime ministership.

In 2007 PRC "assertiveness" was not on the table. In fact, at that time the George W. Bush
administration was looking forlornly for the PRC’s help on the intractable North Korean
issue.The problem, in other words, was
not that China wasn’t being “assertive”; it was that the PRC
was being insufficiently “assertive” in stepping up on the world stage and
shouldering its “responsible stakeholder” obligations, a phrase that has
rather ironically evaporated from the State Department’s China-bashing lexicon
in recent years.

Without an easily exploitable China menace, Prime Minister Abe, in order to
peddle his constitutional revision nostrums and enable the projection of
Japanese power beyond the nation’s boundaries, had to lean on the relatively
slender reeds of the a) the North Korean menace b) global terrorism.

Here’s more from 2007.

Meanwhile this year, Japan converted its defense agency into a formal
ministry of defense, a move that was interpreted by many as a clear indication
of the Abe government's intent to free itself from some of the shackles of the
post-war, US-authored constitution.

When asked about his plans, the prime minister said there were provisions in
the constitution "that no longer suit the times."

"The security environment surrounding Japan and the entire world has
undergone major change," he explained. "There has been proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, the fight against terrorism and regional
conflicts arising here and there."

Certainly, the Abe of 2007, like the Abe of
2013-14, always had rising China at the back of his mind. In 2007, Abe was very much in step with the China-containment preoccupations of
Vice President Dick Cheney, who went rogue and, with Abe’s support, attempted to cobble together an
informal alliance of India, Australia, Japan, and the United States to confront
the Chicom menace.

However, it should be remembered (and I find it just a touch
frustrating that it isn’t) that the first “assertive” power in East Asia was
Japan, not the PRC. In fact, a lot of what went on in the South China Sea and the Senkakus--especially the ruckus surrounding the inflammatory decision to detain and try Captain Zhan in Japan, and the nationalization of three of the Senkakus--could be construed as Chinese reaction to a more assertive Japanese posture. That makes recent headlines like these look less like
reporting and more like ahistorical special pleading on behalf of the Japanese
defense buildup:

First, Japan is “assertive”.It has been at least since 2007.After Abe left office and Seiji Maehara was running the foreign affairs show,
Japan was assertive.Now with Abe back,
Japan is still assertive.

Second, Japan’s determination to revolutionize its military
posture--convert its Self Defense Forces into a conventional military, conduct a
sizable military buildup, underwrite the security posture of several Pacific
countries, return to arms exports for the first time in fifty years, allow
pre-emptive strikes against North Korea and, if and when the pacifist
constitution is revised, conclude collective security agreements with key Asian
allies--is considerably more destabilizing than the PRC’s intransigence on the
various inconsequential and long-standing border disputes with its neighbors.

I should say that I am, perhaps remarkably, not opposed to
Japan’s determination to restore its full national sovereignty in matters of
what is euphemistically called “defense” or “security” or, in Abe’s magnificent
formulation, “active pacifism” and what I call "blowing things up and killing people" a.k.a. “overseas warmaking
capabilities”. This is an ineluctable process,
indeed spurred by Japan’s unwillingness to exist as a second-class citizen in
East Asia in China’s shadow relying on PRC sufferance for its economic and
national security.

However, the return of the world’s fifth largest military to
an explicit warfighting role creates major security stresses for the region and
the world, and I am honestly baffled by the idea that the United States and the
rest of the region, including China, do not have a legitimate interest in
explicitly mediating Japan’s military transition.

The idea that Japan, by virtue of the fact that it is a
democracy and key U.S. ally, should be exempt from such concerns and, instead,
the “assertive China threat” should be mindlessly peddled as an excuse for a
Japanese policy that is fundamentally active, not reactive, is to me, extremely
questionable.

For one thing, the idea that democracies are inherently more
peaceful than authoritarian regimes is a canard that I think is ready for
retirement.Democracies are politically
and socially more robust than authoritarian regimes and can handle the stresses
of war much better, especially since the current recipe calls for fewer boots
on the ground and a healthy dose of stand-off munitions and death a la drone
instead.Saddam Hussein was a serial
warmonger, but when was the last time Kim Jung Un, Vladimir Putin*, Muammar
Qaddafi—or for that matter, the PRC leadership—started a war?And who has a pretty good track record for
starting wars over the last fifteen years?I think you get my point.

For that matter, PM Abe’s inclinations tend toward the LDP
oligarch end of the spectrum, with a strong dash of nationalism and a streak of
authoritarianism.The LDP’s current good
fortune in holding veto-proof majorities in both legislative branches and competing
with opposition parties that are in complete disarray imply that democratic
checks will not be decisive over the next couple years.

Finally, I’ve argued repeatedly and I think persuasively
that Japan’s ambitions toward security independence undercut the argument that
Japan will serve as a tractable ally.Instead, I see Japan enlarging its capacity to advance its own national
goals by leveraging U.S. diplomatic and military support—and by using and
cultivating tensions with the PRC to smooth the way.The United States, by hyping the China
threat, particularly under Secretary Clinton, has brought this problem on
itself to a certain extent.

“Assertive” Japan exists.Get used to it and, if possible, deal with it.

[*]No, Russia did
not start the Russia-Georgia War in 2007.The
other guy did.I find it amusing that
the West, led by the US, immediately pledged $4.5 billion—including $2 billion
in grants, not loans-- to Georgia to help it rebuild after losing the war it
had itself started.In fact, the World
Bank had estimated that only $3.2 billion was needed since the bulk of the destruction occurred in the breakaway region of Ossetia, which bore the brunt of the Georgian attack.

So I guess that the extra
$1.3 billion in pledges were meant to reward Georgia for its otherwise
unproductive loyalty to the EU, the Western bloc, and the United States.“Assertiveness” has its privileges, for some
countries, anyway.

The Russians got the
job of rebuilding Tskhinval, the town in breakaway Ossetia that the Georgians
had largely leveled during the attack; that cost somewhere around 8 billion
rubles.